Phillip II of Macedon certainly comes to mind, and I may sound like a broken record, but also Alexander the Great. I'll think about it some more and give my list; as well as explaining my reasons for the fantastic father and son combination.

I've revised my US leaders:Top United States Leaders1. George Washington. Without
him, the nation is totally different or non-existent. He changed the
course of history. Probably a top 5 overall.2. Abraham Lincoln.
Again, changed the course of history. Do I agree with his policies?
No. But he changed the trajectory of the US, for the stronger. (Of
course, I'm in the South, so I don't like him much...) Probably a top
25 overall.3. Thomas Jefferson. Molded the shape of the US, wrote Declaration, purchased Louisiana. Top 50 overall.4. James Madison. Co-author of the Constitution and president of the war of 1812. Top 100.5. Benjamin Franklin. All-around leader up to Revolution, very influential in US development. Top 100.6. Franklin Roosevelt. WWII! Top 100 overall?7. Ronald Reagan. End of Cold War. Top 100 overall?8. Dwight D. Eisenhower. WWII and President. Top 100 overall?9. Douglas MacArthur. WWII and Korea. Top 100 overall?10. Andrew Jackson. Battle of New Orleans (I know, the war was over...) and a vigorous presidency that molded the future. Top 100 overall?11. Theodore Roosevelt. Turned the US toward imperialism, helped make US a world player. Top 100 overall?

I'd forgotten some of the early leaders that had such a profound impact.

He, according to the researches I've read, established the first inter-community relations, processed state lands to be taken for agriculture and started establishing roads. That's just a tiny bit. Plus, he was the last grand Emperor and one of the last to hold the title 'well' (Friedrich II would be the next and last one).

There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no chaos, there is harmony.
There is no death, there is the Force.

Sorry Seko , was so much evident for me that MLK was important for USA that when both you published your opinions i thought (("what the hell guys what are you thinking about!"))

My top american 5:

1. Franklin D. Roosevelt - general, top 5 in fact third

2. John F. Kennedy - no matter the few changes he made, the few time he was president, he was a true leader and his footpring in the world is... a world at all, that we can see the morning and not the nuclear apocalypse. (general 20-30)

3. Abraham Lincoln, the president in front of the most dangerous hour for the nation(general 20-30)

4. Marthin Luther King: what to say here? (general 20-30)

5. Bill Clinton: what a happy country, everyone turn the eyes to the past and can see the shining 90's, the good work. (general between 40-50)

OMG i think i have put in all the lists too much guys for the echelon 20-30

I like your list but do have a few remarks. Roosevelt, four elections won. Unprecedented, yes. General, no.

Kennedy had on the job Bay of PIgs training and didn't do so well. Yet overall an inspiration and farsighted leader. Bill Clinton. Good debater, sensitive to polls. Lucky to reign in the good times. Still, he did bring down the national debt and gave extra credit to his student interns.

Sorry Seko , was so much evident for me that MLK was important for USA that when both you published your opinions i thought (("what the hell guys what are you thinking about!"))

My top american 5:

1. Franklin D. Roosevelt - general, top 5 in fact third

2. John F. Kennedy - no matter the few changes he made, the few time he was president, he was a true leader and his footpring in the world is... a world at all, that we can see the morning and not the nuclear apocalypse. (general 20-30)

3. Abraham Lincoln, the president in front of the most dangerous hour for the nation(general 20-30)

4. Marthin Luther King: what to say here? (general 20-30)

5. Bill Clinton: what a happy country, everyone turn the eyes to the past and can see the shining 90's, the good work. (general between 40-50)

OMG i think i have put in all the lists too much guys for the echelon 20-30

As a real-life American , here's my response.1. Franklin Roosevelt. America was already at/near the apex of its power; he simply made its power felt in WWII. His handling of the depression, in my opinion, was awful (I don't want to discuss that in this thread). I don't see that the trajectory changed much. The US was powerful before and after him. He simply presided over the peak; I feel his economic policies started pushing us toward the beginning of decline. He didn't make America great; he simply helped break down the isolationism which (to a large extent, I think) helped make America as great as it was. And that is typically the beginning of the decline of a great power (if you read The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers). Nevertheless, so far the US has mostly maintained its position, though it is losing steadily its economic dominance that put it in that position in the first place.2. JFK. He, again, just happens to be leading near the top of the US power. Didn't do a whole lot--he did pull off a peaceful resolution to the Cuban Missile Crisis. That means very little. I don't see him even sniffing this list. I think you, like many, are mistaking presiding over a powerful nation to making that nation great.3. I agree.4. MLK. I agree that he was a great leader, and brought great changes to the US. I may add him to my list, I kinda forgot about him. Nevertheless, he didn't make the US become powerful or substantially change its course in terms of the balance of power in the world.5. Clinton. Again, gets credit for something he had little to do with. This is a trend in the world. Typically the forces that great the great powers happened long before the people who get credit. Honestly, I think he and others that increase social spending decrease the nation's power--government is more inefficient at distributing money than the free market, and takes a huge chunk out of the GNP. More government compared to production = sooner or later decline. Again, Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.

BTW, the saying, at least where I live, is "What can I say?" not "What to say here?."

what do you mean? Reagan was perhaps the best president of the USA and one of the greatest leaders ever.

Swabians, i never will understand you?

You mean the same person? This third class actor, who tried to play a role in the movie

" Who the f**k, are these bloody russians ?"?

Greatest leader of what? Of the cutbackers of social politics, leader of the arms build-upers? Leader of the south-america back to colonial status group?

Reagan purposefully upped the ante in the arms race in order to bring down the Russian economy. It was a calculated gamble that worked amazingly. He knew what he was doing; he successfully brought down one of the greatest powers in history with some bogus defense thing called the "Strategic Defense Initiative". The American public could see how stupid the plan was, how much of a money drain it was. But the thing is--it was supposed to be a money drain! The idea was to simply pit the US economy vs. the USSR economy because he knew the US would win that. The SDI was a facade. It was an elegant plan that worked to perfection. Likely better than Reagan would have hoped!

He did decrease the US power worldwide relative to the rest of the world by spending so much money uselessly. However, he widened the gap between the US and the field in the short term by bringing down the USSR, the prime competitor, and since the SDI and such spending could be cut back later, essentially didn't lose the US much at all by using that strategy. And most everyone is happy the USSR is no more!

Yeap. Reagan got a very smart plan with the SDI. However, I am afraid he believed it was going to work .

With respect to the best American president, I admire Jefferson and Roosevelt, and I dissagree with the case of Lincoln. That was a very bloody war that perhaps a more skillful President could have avoided or stopped.

In Amerindian figures, my favorite from the U.S. is Crazy horse, that got a monument bigger than any president

Edited by pinguin - 05-Mar-2008 at 01:05

"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Yes, after ascending the throne, he found his kingdom virtually on the brink of collapse, and his neighbours, hovering like vultures poised to put an end to its existence. Not to mention the internal strife from pretenders who wanted to usurp the throne for themselves as well. Philioppos, at the tender age of 21, demonstrated his abilities, not only as a competent ruler, but as a skillful diplomat, many even consider him to have been one of the most skillful diplomats in history. In a little more than a year, he had crushed all pretenders, firmly establishing himself on the throne, pushed back the Paonians, and went on to bribe the kings of Illyria and Thrace in exchange for peace, so as to "buy" enough time to continue to implement his reforms, and reorganize the kingdom.

Nezahualcoytl (engineer, poet and king of Texcoco, the Athens of the Americas)

Pacal, the greatest mayan king.

Nezahualcoyotl is a good choice, but personally I would not select Pacal. The epithet 'Pacal the great' was given him by 20th century archaeologists, and was not used by the Mayas themselves, and also Palenque was never as powerful as Calakmul or Tikal. If you want to pick a Mayan leader Sky-Witness of Calakmul would be a better one, he defeated Tikal and made Calakmul the sole superpower of the Mayan world. Other Meso-American nominees could be the Toltec ruler and culture hero Ce Acatl Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl, the founder of Tula and possibily Chichén Itzá, or the Mixtec ruler 8-Deer Jaguar Claw of Tilantongo.

Great comment! Thanks. I will look for those fellows. If you wish to post something detailed about them in the section "history of the Americas" I will thank you.

Mixcoatl wrote:

For modern Latin American History Simón Bolívar, the liberator of much of South America, and Benito Juárez, who introduced a liberal, secular and democratic system in Mexico and succesfully managed to repel the French should definately included. A more controversial selection would be Che Guevara. If you want to include him or not depends on your definition of 'great', but if you look just as importance he should definately be considered. It may also be interesting to include one of two populists of the '40 or '50, Vargas (Brazil), Perón (Argentina), Cárdenas (Mexico), Arias (Panama) or Ibáñez (Chile). Though most of their reforms (Cárdenas is an excpeption) did not last very long, they changed the political culture of the countries they ruled and for the first time got the majority of the population involved in politics (and apart from that most of them had very interesting personalities).

Yes, modern Latin America is a lot more controversial. It is hard to pick the best between many. In the case of my country, I would not select Ibañez at all. Perhaps a Father Hurtado (the founding of a charity organization) or Dr. Monckeberg (the man that fought against infantile desnutrition) would be bigger figures than him. Allende did badly as president and his glory came from the fact he didn't gave up.

"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum